The Myth of Home Grown Solutions

Obviously, each organization and person has to customize solutions for their situation and goals. But there are some general principles in regards to the importance of priorities, communication, system dynamics, variation, and processes that will be constant. Engineers, doctors, and architects are generally expected to be licensed and / or recipients of a formal education before they can practice their craft. They, too, must improvise and problem-solve in situations that weren't covered in class - but they have a body of knowledge upon which they can rely when doing so.

The field of management is perhaps not as mature a science as meteorology, physics, or engineering. But some fabulous minds have delved into the topic and come out with insights that could change how you do business.

It seems a crime that so few practitioners of management have heard of the leading thinkers like Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming, Russell Ackoff, Edgar Schein, and Peter Senge. Their writing is not always easy, but it generally seems easier to understand their insights than to manage without them.

Next time you are debating about whether to work overtime or do something personal, compromise: read a book by one of these great thinkers.

The Myth of Proof

"Can you prove it?"

This is more than proof that you're dealing with a pragmatist. It is also a convenient way of avoiding the need to change and demonstrates a misunderstanding of change.

If something is truly innovative - if it represents a significant change - it simply can't be proven in advance. No examples substitute for a theory and no proof can be generated until after you've actually attempted the change.

And this cuts both ways. "Proof" that something works in the past is really no guarantee that it will work in the future. Phonograph records sold rather well for decades. As the mutual fund ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Perhaps the worst kind of success is success that isn't well understood but can be "proven" with data. It is one thing - and a wonderful thing - to have success. It is quite another thing to be able to repeat it.

You will never have proof that something will work in the future. As Deming continually said, "management is prediction." Although you can never have proof, you should have a theory of knowledge, a set of testable predictions that you regularly test and update. It is a theory of knowledge (one of Deming's four elements of profound knowledge) that is perhaps the most important bridge out of the world of management myth.

Myth of Cause and Effect

There are a number of variations to this myth of cause and effect. And it is easily the most pervasive. In its simplest form, it is simply the myth that whoever is standing closest to the problem is obviously responsible for it. An example of this would be management believing that the manufacturing person unable to keep sufficient inventory of odd-sized bolts is obviously responsible for the problem when production is halted rather than the designer who included an obsolete bolt spec in his design. Deming was particularly frustrated with this common management disease.

But the myth is more pervasive than this. As it turns out, cause and effect is typically defined in advance by the system, by context. Peter Senge used to ask who the leader on a ship was. Common answers included the captain who gave orders, the navigator who gave directions, the activity director who set the tone, etc. Senge pointed out that the ship designer is rarely mentioned as the leader even though the designer defines what activities can take place, how sharply the ship can turn, its maximum speed, etc. Once the ship is designed, all other parties are simply tweaking variables within some predetermined range. They are causing various effects, to be sure, but those effects are all within a normal, predetermined range. Getting "effects" outside of that range requires a change to the system, something an employee rarely has the responsibility or knowledge to do.

Management concerned with cause and effect is basically working to maintain the status quo. Transformative leadership changes the context, changes what is possible. Cause and effect is a given once a particular system is defined. Perhaps the biggest myth is to believe that the individual employees within that system can transcend its limits.

- Ron